2 bottles of testosterone and needles found in the house. Just been confirmed on the news.
Some reports saying the defence claims it's not testosterone, but a herbal remedy. Others saying that it's confirmed that it's a herbal remedy. Not sure it makes much difference to the case though tbh.
Still can't get over the fact that apparently he didn't check to see see where his girlfriend was before going in all guns blazing. I don't know about you - but the first thing I would do if I heard noises in the night would be to establish the whereabouts of my nearest and dearest, because it is them that I would be looking to protect. Is he so self centred/paranoid/steroid addled/stupid that he didn't do that? I simply cannot believe it.
His story sounds so dodgy, it won't take much for it to fall apart and the forensics will be able to easily establish whether the little details in his story hold water (e.g legs vs no legs/bathroom door closed/not closed)
As has been mentioned on here - for some reason I never really liked him as he seemed to be a little too egotistic and attention seeking for my liking and I have encountered people like that before who lose sight of their nobler aims and become narcissists for whom any actions are acceptable in order to maintain their status (hence the steroid story really doesn't surprise me). This was confirmed to me by the way he reacted to losing that race - like a petulant, spoiled child. So, it seems a lot of people have been taken in - as I don't see someone grieving for accidentally killing a loved one, but a man consumed by self pity and the fact that he will no longer be hero worshipped. In short, it appears he is a scumbag...and a scumbag that injects steroids is a very dangerous individual. One that injects steroids and keeps a loaded hand cannon in his bedroom - well that is just a murderer in waiting....
I know I'm going to look pretty daft if new evidence emerges of his innocence, but I just can't see it myself.
How can you start this farce of a trial or pre trial or whatever it is without the substances found even having been tested, the investigating officer admits he walked through the crime scene without shoe protectors on and now even admits that Pistorious version of events are consistent with what has been found and that is all without the fact this is being played out in the media. I find the whole sorry thing farcical.
From the Mail: "The lead detective in the Oscar Pistorius trial is facing seven attempted murder charges, it has emerged today. Hilton Botha and two other policemen allegedly shot at a group of passengers in a mini-bus taxi in 2009, according to South Africa's Eye-Witness News. It is also alleged that Detective Botha and the other two policemen were drunk when the incident occurred." He seems an utter clown.
For anyone who may be interested, my cousin, who is a lawyer in SA, put this up on facebook last night regarding the bail hearing. "So we've been bombarded with a running commentary of the Pistorius bail application. Having followed the news (unwillingly) and eavesdropping on office banter, lift skinner and coffee shop discourse, I am compelled to impart my hard-earned knowledge of Criminal Law 401W.
Firstly, let us not get carried away about whether Oscar is guilty or not based on the evidence led at the bail hearing. This is a bail hearing, not a trial. Let me explain.
Oscar will get bail, and will be free to roam the street on his stumps or blades, depending on how fearful he is of the unknown.
Let me summarise.
1. A bail hearing is there to ensure that an individuals freedom is preserved as far as possible pending the trial of the issue. IT IS NOT A FORM OF PUNISHMENT, and is not to be used as an anticipatory form of punishment.
2. The aim of a bail application is not to determine whether or not a crime has been committed. Obviously, if it is found that the State's case is overly weak, the Accused should be granted bail.
3. The issue as to whether Oscar is to be charged with a Schedule 5 or 6 offence is only relevant as to the onus and burden of proof in the bail application. The factors the court must consider are numerous and varied, and the fact that an Accuse is granted bail makes no pronouncement on his innocence or guilt.
4. Factors which a court considers are the following:
* the Accused's previous convictions. * the Accused's propensity to commit violent crime. * the potential intimidation of or threat to witnesses. * the Accused's previous failure to comply with bail conditions. * public order issues, and whether the release of the Accused may have an effect on public order. * whether the Accused deliberately supplied false or misleading information both prior to his arrest and during the bail application. * whether the accused is a flight risk. * the physical, emotional, family and business ties the Accused has to the place where the trial is to be held. * assets, particularly any fixed assets the accused may possess. * the possilbility of the accused returning to court to conduct the trial, and if not the possibility the the State would be able to easily trace and possibly extradite the Accused. * the seriousness of the offence, and the possible sentence if convicted.
5. There are a number of other possible relevant factors.
6. What cannot be disputed is that Oscar is entitled to obtain bail pending his trial.
7. What further cannot be disputed is that Oscar will be convicted of a serious crime, at best (for him) cuplable homocide, at worst (for him), murder.
8. The only question is, if convicted of culpable homocide, will he received a custodial or non-custodial sentence.
My prediction. Bail will be granted in the amount of R250 000, with conditions that he hand his passport to the Investigating Officer, he report weekly to his local Police Station, that he not interfere with witness, the investigation or any potential evidence, and that he hand over all firearms that he possesses.
For anyone who may be interested, my cousin, who is a lawyer in SA, put this up on facebook last night regarding the bail hearing. "So we've been bombarded with a running commentary of the Pistorius bail application. Having followed the news (unwillingly) and eavesdropping on office banter, lift skinner and coffee shop discourse, I am compelled to impart my hard-earned knowledge of Criminal Law 401W.
Firstly, let us not get carried away about whether Oscar is guilty or not based on the evidence led at the bail hearing. This is a bail hearing, not a trial. Let me explain.
Oscar will get bail, and will be free to roam the street on his stumps or blades, depending on how fearful he is of the unknown.
Let me summarise.
1. A bail hearing is there to ensure that an individuals freedom is preserved as far as possible pending the trial of the issue. IT IS NOT A FORM OF PUNISHMENT, and is not to be used as an anticipatory form of punishment.
2. The aim of a bail application is not to determine whether or not a crime has been committed. Obviously, if it is found that the State's case is overly weak, the Accused should be granted bail.
3. The issue as to whether Oscar is to be charged with a Schedule 5 or 6 offence is only relevant as to the onus and burden of proof in the bail application. The factors the court must consider are numerous and varied, and the fact that an Accuse is granted bail makes no pronouncement on his innocence or guilt.
4. Factors which a court considers are the following:
* the Accused's previous convictions. * the Accused's propensity to commit violent crime. * the potential intimidation of or threat to witnesses. * the Accused's previous failure to comply with bail conditions. * public order issues, and whether the release of the Accused may have an effect on public order. * whether the Accused deliberately supplied false or misleading information both prior to his arrest and during the bail application. * whether the accused is a flight risk. * the physical, emotional, family and business ties the Accused has to the place where the trial is to be held. * assets, particularly any fixed assets the accused may possess. * the possilbility of the accused returning to court to conduct the trial, and if not the possibility the the State would be able to easily trace and possibly extradite the Accused. * the seriousness of the offence, and the possible sentence if convicted.
5. There are a number of other possible relevant factors.
6. What cannot be disputed is that Oscar is entitled to obtain bail pending his trial.
7. What further cannot be disputed is that Oscar will be convicted of a serious crime, at best (for him) cuplable homocide, at worst (for him), murder.
8. The only question is, if convicted of culpable homocide, will he received a custodial or non-custodial sentence.
My prediction. Bail will be granted in the amount of R250 000, with conditions that he hand his passport to the Investigating Officer, he report weekly to his local Police Station, that he not interfere with witness, the investigation or any potential evidence, and that he hand over all firearms that he possesses.
For anyone who may be interested, my cousin, who is a lawyer in SA, put this up on facebook last night regarding the bail hearing. "So we've been bombarded with a running commentary of the Pistorius bail application. Having followed the news (unwillingly) and eavesdropping on office banter, lift skinner and coffee shop discourse, I am compelled to impart my hard-earned knowledge of Criminal Law 401W.
Firstly, let us not get carried away about whether Oscar is guilty or not based on the evidence led at the bail hearing. This is a bail hearing, not a trial. Let me explain.
Oscar will get bail, and will be free to roam the street on his stumps or blades, depending on how fearful he is of the unknown.
Let me summarise.
1. A bail hearing is there to ensure that an individuals freedom is preserved as far as possible pending the trial of the issue. IT IS NOT A FORM OF PUNISHMENT, and is not to be used as an anticipatory form of punishment.
2. The aim of a bail application is not to determine whether or not a crime has been committed. Obviously, if it is found that the State's case is overly weak, the Accused should be granted bail.
3. The issue as to whether Oscar is to be charged with a Schedule 5 or 6 offence is only relevant as to the onus and burden of proof in the bail application. The factors the court must consider are numerous and varied, and the fact that an Accuse is granted bail makes no pronouncement on his innocence or guilt.
4. Factors which a court considers are the following:
* the Accused's previous convictions. * the Accused's propensity to commit violent crime. * the potential intimidation of or threat to witnesses. * the Accused's previous failure to comply with bail conditions. * public order issues, and whether the release of the Accused may have an effect on public order. * whether the Accused deliberately supplied false or misleading information both prior to his arrest and during the bail application. * whether the accused is a flight risk. * the physical, emotional, family and business ties the Accused has to the place where the trial is to be held. * assets, particularly any fixed assets the accused may possess. * the possilbility of the accused returning to court to conduct the trial, and if not the possibility the the State would be able to easily trace and possibly extradite the Accused. * the seriousness of the offence, and the possible sentence if convicted.
5. There are a number of other possible relevant factors.
6. What cannot be disputed is that Oscar is entitled to obtain bail pending his trial.
7. What further cannot be disputed is that Oscar will be convicted of a serious crime, at best (for him) cuplable homocide, at worst (for him), murder.
8. The only question is, if convicted of culpable homocide, will he received a custodial or non-custodial sentence.
My prediction. Bail will be granted in the amount of R250 000, with conditions that he hand his passport to the Investigating Officer, he report weekly to his local Police Station, that he not interfere with witness, the investigation or any potential evidence, and that he hand over all firearms that he possesses.
The bloke's guilty as sin. Bet he gets away with it.
I was thinking the same thing this morning. There's no doubt in my own mind that he did it, I mean who goes to tackle a burglar without nudging their partner or giving them the old "can you hear that", but it seems to be turning into such a farce I can see him getting away with it.
Rather than a bail hearing, this is turning into a pre-trial mud slinging competition and whether he's guilty or not, Pistorius' team seem to be coming out on top.
This entire court case is a joke. The detective is now having attempted murder charges brought up that had previously been dropped? Where's this come from all of a sudden?
What a country, I for one won't be going there any time soon.
I still can't get my head round the fact that after hearing the noise in the bathroom he walked past the bed. There is not a chance that you wouldn't check the bed to see if she was in it. And even if by some miracle you didn't do that, you'd at least go the bathroom and shout to ask if it was her and wait for a reply. His excuse that he didn't notice she wasn't in bed because it was pitch black is piss poor when in this same 'darkness' she supposedly got up and went to the toilet, he got his gun and went to the bathroom, then came back and put his legs on before switching on the light.
However i'm becoming more and more convinced that he'll get away with it. Ordinary run of the mill lawyers work for the state - the better ones know they can earn far more money obtaining 'not guilty' verdicts by sowing large seeds of doubt that will prevent a 'guilty' verdict. I'm pretty sure he is guilty but the top-notch expensive lawyer that he can afford to pay made the police guy look like a complete amateur yesterday and i can see this continuing.
Is it just me that thinks there is more to the police officer being terrible yesterday than meets the eye?... Almost as if someone had had a word with him, let's not forget people have extreme leverage on him with this whole attempted murder thing...
To be honest, whatever the result of the trial turns out to be, there will be those who rightly or wrongly will be convinced it was wrong. Lest we forget, the trial when there will be a lot more hard evidence either way will be much more significant than a farcical bail decision.
"Mr Pistorius's testimony relies on it having been dark, because Mr Pistorius says he did not notice that Ms Steenkamp was not in bed - despite having to walk past the bed to get to the bathroom from the balcony. It would have been even more difficult not to notice Mr Steenkamp's absence, Det Botha claims, because the pistol was under the side of the bed on which she was sleeping."
Comments
Not sure it makes much difference to the case though tbh.
His story sounds so dodgy, it won't take much for it to fall apart and the forensics will be able to easily establish whether the little details in his story hold water (e.g legs vs no legs/bathroom door closed/not closed)
As has been mentioned on here - for some reason I never really liked him as he seemed to be a little too egotistic and attention seeking for my liking and I have encountered people like that before who lose sight of their nobler aims and become narcissists for whom any actions are acceptable in order to maintain their status (hence the steroid story really doesn't surprise me). This was confirmed to me by the way he reacted to losing that race - like a petulant, spoiled child. So, it seems a lot of people have been taken in - as I don't see someone grieving for accidentally killing a loved one, but a man consumed by self pity and the fact that he will no longer be hero worshipped. In short, it appears he is a scumbag...and a scumbag that injects steroids is a very dangerous individual. One that injects steroids and keeps a loaded hand cannon in his bedroom - well that is just a murderer in waiting....
I know I'm going to look pretty daft if new evidence emerges of his innocence, but I just can't see it myself.
"The lead detective in the Oscar Pistorius trial is facing seven attempted murder charges, it has emerged today.
Hilton Botha and two other policemen allegedly shot at a group of passengers in a mini-bus taxi in 2009, according to South Africa's Eye-Witness News.
It is also alleged that Detective Botha and the other two policemen were drunk when the incident occurred."
He seems an utter clown.
"So we've been bombarded with a running commentary of the Pistorius bail application. Having followed the news (unwillingly) and eavesdropping on office banter, lift skinner and coffee shop discourse, I am compelled to impart my hard-earned knowledge of Criminal Law 401W.
Firstly, let us not get carried away about whether Oscar is guilty or not based on the evidence led at the bail hearing. This is a bail hearing, not a trial. Let me explain.
Oscar will get bail, and will be free to roam the street on his stumps or blades, depending on how fearful he is of the unknown.
Let me summarise.
1. A bail hearing is there to ensure that an individuals freedom is preserved as far as possible pending the trial of the issue. IT IS NOT A FORM OF PUNISHMENT, and is not to be used as an anticipatory form of punishment.
2. The aim of a bail application is not to determine whether or not a crime has been committed. Obviously, if it is found that the State's case is overly weak, the Accused should be granted bail.
3. The issue as to whether Oscar is to be charged with a Schedule 5 or 6 offence is only relevant as to the onus and burden of proof in the bail application. The factors the court must consider are numerous and varied, and the fact that an Accuse is granted bail makes no pronouncement on his innocence or guilt.
4. Factors which a court considers are the following:
* the Accused's previous convictions.
* the Accused's propensity to commit violent crime.
* the potential intimidation of or threat to witnesses.
* the Accused's previous failure to comply with bail conditions.
* public order issues, and whether the release of the Accused may have an effect on public order.
* whether the Accused deliberately supplied false or misleading information both prior to his arrest and during the bail application.
* whether the accused is a flight risk.
* the physical, emotional, family and business ties the Accused has to the place where the trial is to be held.
* assets, particularly any fixed assets the accused may possess.
* the possilbility of the accused returning to court to conduct the trial, and if not the possibility the the State would be able to easily trace and possibly extradite the Accused.
* the seriousness of the offence, and the possible sentence if convicted.
5. There are a number of other possible relevant factors.
6. What cannot be disputed is that Oscar is entitled to obtain bail pending his trial.
7. What further cannot be disputed is that Oscar will be convicted of a serious crime, at best (for him) cuplable homocide, at worst (for him), murder.
8. The only question is, if convicted of culpable homocide, will he received a custodial or non-custodial sentence.
My prediction. Bail will be granted in the amount of R250 000, with conditions that he hand his passport to the Investigating Officer, he report weekly to his local Police Station, that he not interfere with witness, the investigation or any potential evidence, and that he hand over all firearms that he possesses.
But eventually, guilty he will be.
And that's a wrap....."
What a country, I for one won't be going there any time soon.
His excuse that he didn't notice she wasn't in bed because it was pitch black is piss poor when in this same 'darkness' she supposedly got up and went to the toilet, he got his gun and went to the bathroom, then came back and put his legs on before switching on the light.
However i'm becoming more and more convinced that he'll get away with it. Ordinary run of the mill lawyers work for the state - the better ones know they can earn far more money obtaining 'not guilty' verdicts by sowing large seeds of doubt that will prevent a 'guilty' verdict. I'm pretty sure he is guilty but the top-notch expensive lawyer that he can afford to pay made the police guy look like a complete amateur yesterday and i can see this continuing.
That, for me, somes it up. He would have checked.
I just don't believe him as it stands.
Its not evidence.
600M away yet the neighbor can hear conversation ?
Facts ? he killed her.